All good points.Jounichi And the rules find for Falling onto a Creature is great. As I update the FAQ, I have a few follow-up questions.
By the rules, an Echo occupies it's space. Assuming we are using a battle map, how are you defining space? Does an Echo occupy its space the same way a character might? Or are you treating Echos more like an object instead of a creature? A few tests that came up in the FAQ:
Can an Echo move through another creatures space (assuming we are using a battle map)?
Can an enemy move through an Echo's space?
Can an ally move the an Echo's space? (I ask this one because an Echo is not considered an ally because it is an object and not a creature)
Can an Echo move through a closed door? Or a glass window?
Does it matter what "physical" size the Echo is for any of the above questions? For example, it it were a Echo of a halfling vs an Echo of a large hulking goliath in armor with a tower shield?
Can an Echo move through water, and if so, does it displace water?
I don't have the answer to all these questions, but I've love to get your thoughts @Jounichi1983 or @quindraco.Or anyone else.
I would define "occupies its space" to mean controlling however many grid squares the echo knight does. If the echo knight is medium, then it controls one square. If the echo knight were subject to the enlarge/reduce spell and made Large size, then the echo would likewise control four squares in a 2 x 2 configuration. As for the bullet points, I'll do my best.
I'm going to refer back to the rules on moving around other creatures. The echo itself isn't a creature, so it cannot do what creatures do. And this means it cannot move through a nonhostile creature's space.
No, because it's an object that controls its own space. In that sense, it's no different than a barrel, crate, or stone pillar.
Strictly speaking, no. But there might be a caveat. The echo is an image of the echo knight. If the echo knight were to share space with a nonhostile creature, the echo knight's attacks via the echo would still be made with disadvantage. The echo itself might contort to match the positioning of the echo knight, even if the echo isn't sharing space with another character or object. And the echo knight can teleport, swapping locations with their echo. So it may still be possible for an echo to be sharing space with a nonhostile creature. It's not a situation expressly covered by the feature, so we're very plainly venturing into "rulings, not rules" territory.
No, because (again) the echo occupies its space. Compare its wording to that of the Order of Scribes' Awakened Spellbook: "The spectral mind is intangible and doesn't occupy its space...It can pass through creatures but not objects." If Manifest Echo was intended to allow for incorporeal movement, it would say so. But this does put us in a weird predicament. The echo is not expressly tangible or intangible, but it is (somehow) still substantial. Multiverse Theory is a *****.
I'm going to say no. Both Small and Medium creatures occupy the same size of grid squares on a battle map.
An interesting question, and one I've wrestled with. The echo can move through water, it's just another kind of terrain, and at a faster speed than the echo knight probably can. Whether this means it displaces water...maybe. Probably. It's weird. I don't think that, mechanically, it matters, so it can probably be ignored.
And, I would like to point out that, the rule for falling onto another creature, according to RAW, does not work with the echo. But it is something I would personally allow because the echo is capable of reacting independently of the echo knight. I say this because it can make saving throws, using the echo knight's modifier, even if the echo knight isn't.
I would define "occupies its space" to mean controlling however many grid squares the echo knight does. If the echo knight is medium, then it controls one square. If the echo knight were subject to the enlarge/reduce spell and made Large size, then the echo would likewise control four squares in a 2 x 2 configuration. As for the bullet points, I'll do my best.
Hiya Jounichi. You used an interesting term in your definition of "occupies its space". You said "...it controls one square." Here in lies I think what is part of the contradictions within the rules. If it is just treated like an inanimate object, like "a barrel, crate, or column", then other creatures could or should be able to around to move through the space, though with some difficulty. If it is an inanimate object, how does it "control" its space? We could assume it is an animated object that is moving around or otherwise preventing others from entering the space, but this leads to it's own rules challenges.
Obviously 5 foot squares and 'controlled' spaces are just abstractions and mechanics for use on a grid. As another example, using this abstraction, a creature can't move through a halfling's space because the halfling is trying to prevent it. So this really leads to two options that I can think of. Either the Echo is actively controlling it's space, or there is some magical force that is preventing others from entering the space.
This is why I think the question of how or if an Echo can move through (or displace) water is a good one. If it has physical form (and displaces water), this implies that it is substantial or tangible. Even if we say the Echo is semi-transparent, to displace water something has to be pushing the water away from the form the Echo occupies. And we can assume that whatever force is pushing water away can also push other things away. This also begs that question, can other creatures influence or push on that force? Can an Echo be 'shoved'? Can it be moved using other force magic? This all starts to go down a slippery slope of having to define yet more interactions.
Since the rules are unclear, there are a few different models we could use to explain how Echos work within the rules and metaphysics of D&D. For the purposes of this FAQ, it might be valuable to propose a couple different models since there currently is no definitive answer. There are really 2 or 3 models that I can think of based on what has been debated so far.
Model 1: Echos are tangible and can be interacted with
The illusory dragon spell might actually be a good example. It says the huge illusory dragon "...occupies its space, as if it were a creature." I like the part where they add 'as if it were a creature', which might suggestion/solve how we could treat a Echo. They go onto say that, "The illusion is tangible because of the shadow stuff used to create it, but attacks miss it automatically, it succeeds on all saving throws, and it is immune to all damage and conditions." While Echo might still be an object, we can apply rules related to the space it occupies "as if it were a creature." Thus presumably allies could move through it's space, it would displace water, other creatures could fall on top of it. It also implies you could tie a rope around, which could lead to some potential abuses.
Model 2: Echos are just illusions that magically force creatures away from it
This model suggests that the Echo is just an insubstantial illusion, somewhat like Spiritual Weapon. And the Echo can exert some magical force against things that try to enter its 'space'. This simplifies questions like, 'Can I tie a rope around the Echo?', 'Can an Echo be grappled?', and 'Does it displace water?' since it has no substance and is not tangible. The same force used to allow the Echo to momentarily hit another creature can be used to push back on other creatures or things trying to enter its 'space'. However, since it is not physical, this means it can't be pushed or moved. Which could potentially be abused to some degree as well. This also doesn't solve the mechanical problem of someone standing on top of the a flying Echo, since a creature can't enter the Echo's space. Though it could be stated that someone standing on top would likely fall off to one side or another since the magical force keeping others away is not uniform or doesn't create a stable or flat surface. This still assumes that when enough force or energy hit an Echo, it dissipates.
Model 3: Echos are semi-substantial
I'm not sure it this model is fully needed. But this model implies that you can still feel an Echo and there is some resistance, but you hand would still pass through it. This can be used to explain why you can still 'hit' it and why it has HP. But also why it you can't tie a rope around it. Presumably there would still have to be some magical force that would allow the Echo to keep others out of its space. One alternate option is that Echo is sometimes substantial and sometimes not. For example, when it is used to attack or keep others away, it is clearly substantial.
What do you think of the above models? What are their flaws? What other models would work? My hope is to give DMs and players some options to help answer and justify some of the many questions that will come up related to Echos. And it try to help justify or fill some of the rule gaps and contradictions that exist.
I personally have my own preferences for how I imagine Echos, or how I'd run them in my game. But the FAQ is meant to be more 'by the rules'. It is also worth noting that this is all a funny conversation over an imaginative game with a set of arbitrary rules. But still a fun mental exercise none the less.
The game engine doesn't care about the metaphysics of how something happens. The mechanics are an abstraction, but how it looks is just trappings. If you pose the question, "Does the echo displace water?", then I'll respond with, "Does displacing water mechanically impact the game?" If it doesn't, then whether it displaces water or not is purely cosmetic. If the echo knight is flavoring their "teleport" via Manifest Echo as swapping intersecting timelines with another version of themselves, then they might make subtle changes like eye color or scars. Even more dramatic changes, like sex and gender presentation, are possible since there are no mechanics for governing these characteristics.
What matters is what the rules say you can do. If you want to know whether the echo can be grappled, then you look up the rule for grappling. And we know the echo can't be grappled because it isn't a creature. It's an image; an object. A physical object, like an item of Adventuring Gear, can be picked up or manipulated. We don't need the rules telling us this because it makes sense. But the echo is just an image, so there's no such assumption. That's why the qualifier for [spell]illusory dragon[/item] exists. It's an exception that proves the rule.
Whether a creature can move through an object's space or not is something not expressly covered by the rules. A DM is free to call it difficult terrain and/or call for an ability check. But they are also free to say the space is impassible. And that freedom is beyond the scope of this FAQ. Characters cannot expressly move through an object's space, and so they cannot expressly move through the echo's space. The word "occupy" means to fill or take up space. The image, somehow, is substantial and serves as an obstacle. Presumably, it can even provide cover. It certainly seems to fit the bill.
"Control" seems like a fitting word to describe the echo's ability to affect the space it's in.
The echo fills a given space, has 1 Hit Point, an Armor Class, and can make Saving Throws. And yet, it can be dispelled in a manner not dissimilar from waving your hand through a cloud of smoke and leaves behind no physical evidence of a body. It is, seemingly, a paradox. If you're having trouble wrapping your head around it, then I suggest not thinking too hard on the subject. I find it a distraction, myself.
Sorry, but I don't think any of those models accurately describe it.
Thank Jounichi. You’re points are well taken. If you look at things purely from a rules perspective, everything you said is correct. I’m trying to come up with models for a couple reasons. One, to help or give some clues as to how to answer some of the questions that rules don’t cover. Two, to help give other DMs and players guidance and possible ways to imagine how Echos work beyond just the rules. If you have another model that you think works well, please let me know. I’d be happy to include it. I do think it being both an image and an object is paradoxical and difficult to imagine or comprehend. So my entire goal with this FAQ has been to help players understand what is and isn’t possible. Where there isn’t a rule, the FAQ should totally state it, and give some possible options on how to resolve it when it happens in a game. What player wouldn’t want to try to use an Echo to fly.
Since Tasha’s was written later, I actually think the fact that the wording of Illusory Dragon is more explicit is to solve some of the problems in previous books. So I don’t know that just because Echo Knight descriptions aren’t as explicit, that it means the opposite. Anyway, that is just my opinion.
A lot of good questions have been answered on this thread, and I don’t have answers to all of them. I’ll post them and I’d love to get your insights, model or not. How do you describe or run the paradox of the Echo in your game?
I would define "occupies its space" to mean controlling however many grid squares the echo knight does.
Allowing objects to control grid squares is a Pandora's Box of rules paradoxes that will not end well for you, unless you are prepared to argue that a sling bullet doesn't occupy its space, which will end even more poorly for you.
I would define "occupies its space" to mean controlling however many grid squares the echo knight does.
Allowing objects to control grid squares is a Pandora's Box of rules paradoxes that will not end well for you, unless you are prepared to argue that a sling bullet doesn't occupy its space, which will end even more poorly for you.
Anything of substance, be it creature or object, fills the space it's in; occupying and controlling that space. The only question is the size of that space. My office desk and chair occupy space. My cat occupies space. Abstracted into D&D's rules for movement (particularly on a grid), we only have to concern ourselves with whether it occupies the size of the square. Ideally, these are 1-inch squares meant to represent a 25-square-foot (arranged 5-foot by 5-foot ) area. But this is not always the case.
And, to be clear, none of us can properly fill a 5-foot square. But the game engine doesn't care about real-world physics. It deals in abstractions. Your character's several statistics are all abstractions.
There's no Pandora's box of paradoxes. And I'm disappointed you are approaching this Q&A so flippantly. If you have a competing theory, then, by all means, offer it up to the class. Otherwise, you're not contributing.
Thank Jounichi. You’re points are well taken. If you look at things purely from a rules perspective, everything you said is correct. I’m trying to come up with models for a couple reasons. One, to help or give some clues as to how to answer some of the questions that rules don’t cover. Two, to help give other DMs and players guidance and possible ways to imagine how Echos work beyond just the rules. If you have another model that you think works well, please let me know. I’d be happy to include it. I do think it being both an image and an object is paradoxical and difficult to imagine or comprehend. So my entire goal with this FAQ has been to help players understand what is and isn’t possible. Where there isn’t a rule, the FAQ should totally state it, and give some possible options on how to resolve it when it happens in a game. What player wouldn’t want to try to use an Echo to fly.
Since Tasha’s was written later, I actually think the fact that the wording of Illusory Dragon is more explicit is to solve some of the problems in previous books. So I don’t know that just because Echo Knight descriptions aren’t as explicit, that it means the opposite. Anyway, that is just my opinion.
A lot of good questions have been answered on this thread, and I don’t have answers to all of them. I’ll post them and I’d love to get your insights, model or not. How do you describe or run the paradox of the Echo in your game?
The game engine is only concerned with what is and is not a character. So, as far as the game engine is concerned, anything which isn't a creature is an object. We don't have a third category to draw from. We don't need one; since non-creatures don't have special subsets of rules that necessitate further categorization.
If you intend to answer questions the rules don't cover, then you're stepping past the Rules as Written. The FAQ, in turn, may conflate subjective interpretation with objective application. This has the potential to confuse anyone who reads it, and you won't help people by doing so.
Manifest Echo is rather explicit in what the echo can and cannot do. Do not take its perceived silence as, "Well, it doesn't say I can't do this." If an interaction is intended, a description will say so. People have been trying to apply the same logic to spell interactions for years. The spell grease does not create a flammable area. It does not deal extra fire damage should a spell that deals fire damage be used in its affected area. And we know this because the spell is silent on the subject. It only does what it says it does. Likewise, Manifest Echo only does what it says it does.
You're not going to find one prohibitive rule in any 5e book. There is not one line anywhere that says something to the effect of, "You cannot use X to do Y." And do not assume that just because illusory dragon has specific language that it is somehow meant to serve as errata to material written both before and after it that never received official errata. That is beyond foolhardy.
Q: Does an Echo occupy its space, and can an enemy pass through an Echo’s space? A: Yes, an Echo occupies a square. And thus it prevents enemies from passing through its space.
An echo is an object, and therefore has neither allies nor enemies.
Q: Does an Echo occupy its space, and can an enemy pass through an Echo’s space? A: Yes, an Echo occupies a square. And thus it prevents enemies from passing through its space.
An echo is an object, and therefore has neither allies nor enemies.
I was assuming it would be an enemy of the Knight who created the Echo. But by your reading, should an ally (of the Knight) be able to pass through an Echo's space?
Echo Knight + Rogue... Can you make the bonus action attack with the rogue through the echo?
Can you swing with your main weapon and then attack with the same weapon as a bonus attack with the echo, or would the echo only be able to attack with the off-hand?
Echo Knight + Rogue... Can you make the bonus action attack with the rogue through the echo?
Can you swing with your main weapon and then attack with the same weapon as a bonus attack with the echo, or would the echo only be able to attack with the off-hand?
When you take the Attack action on your turn, any attack you make with that action can originate from your space or the echo’s space. You make this choice for each attack.
"You can heighten your echo’s fury. Whenever you take the Attack action, you can make one additional melee attack from the echo’s position."
No, the echo never actually makes the attack, and any time you would make an attack from the echo's position, it HAS to key off of the Attack action. Rogue BA attacks still only come from your space.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
Echo Knight + Rogue... Can you make the bonus action attack with the rogue through the echo?
Can you swing with your main weapon and then attack with the same weapon as a bonus attack with the echo, or would the echo only be able to attack with the off-hand?
I think what DevanAvalon is spot on. May I ask which rogue Bonus Action attack you are referring to? Or are you asking about two-weapon fighting in general?
Q: Does an Echo occupy its space, and can an enemy pass through an Echo’s space? A: Yes, an Echo occupies a square. And thus it prevents enemies from passing through its space.
An echo is an object, and therefore has neither allies nor enemies.
I was assuming it would be an enemy of the Knight who created the Echo. But by your reading, should an ally (of the Knight) be able to pass through an Echo's space?
I'm conflicted, because I want to say yes (and in which case, of course an enemy would be blocked). But other answers in the fact imply the Echo is an object.
If we want to get into things I want to be true, then all of Sentinel should apply to the echo, because "your reach" should include the reach of your attacks through the echo as well as around your own space. I only argue this because of the wording that it's not the Echo making the attack, but the Knight from the Echo's position.
Q: Does an Echo occupy its space, and can an enemy pass through an Echo’s space? A: Yes, an Echo occupies a square. And thus it prevents enemies from passing through its space.
An echo is an object, and therefore has neither allies nor enemies.
I was assuming it would be an enemy of the Knight who created the Echo. But by your reading, should an ally (of the Knight) be able to pass through an Echo's space?
As an object that occupies its space, you should (probably) be thinking of the Echo as a stone statue for most rules purposes (I am not saying it is actually made of stone, of course). One of the completely unanswered RAW questions about the Echo is its dimensions - it could be a 5x5x5 cube portraying an image, it could be an actual statue, it could be 2-dimensional and rotate to face targets (remember, it's described as an image, not a duplicate). Another is its weight. As always, ask your GM.
Depending your GM's rules regarding the above concerns, you may be able to go right through the Echo's grid space by walking around it. Certainly you can attempt to pick it up or kick it out of the way, as you would a door. Remember, objects can't occupy grid spaces - that's a creature-only rule, and objects have no such rule (I list the creature rule below). "Its space" is (probably) the literal physical space it occupies:
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. - PHB p191; the lack of such a rule for objects implies that an object's space is its physical dimensions. However, at literally no point does any DnD 5E rulebook actually define what it means for an object to occupy its space, so you need to take everything I say in this post with that grain of salt.
tl;dr The Echo is more similar to a statue than it is to a humanoid.
Q: Does an Echo occupy its space, and can an enemy pass through an Echo’s space? A: Yes, an Echo occupies a square. And thus it prevents enemies from passing through its space.
An echo is an object, and therefore has neither allies nor enemies.
I was assuming it would be an enemy of the Knight who created the Echo. But by your reading, should an ally (of the Knight) be able to pass through an Echo's space?
As an object that occupies its space, you should (probably) be thinking of the Echo as a stone statue for most rules purposes (I am not saying it is actually made of stone, of course). One of the completely unanswered RAW questions about the Echo is its dimensions - it could be a 5x5x5 cube portraying an image, it could be an actual statue, it could be 2-dimensional and rotate to face targets (remember, it's described as an image, not a duplicate). Another is its weight. As always, ask your GM.
Depending your GM's rules regarding the above concerns, you may be able to go right through the Echo's grid space by walking around it. Certainly you can attempt to pick it up or kick it out of the way, as you would a door. Remember, objects can't occupy grid spaces - that's a creature-only rule, and objects have no such rule (I list the creature rule below). "Its space" is (probably) the literal physical space it occupies:
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. - PHB p191; the lack of such a rule for objects implies that an object's space is its physical dimensions. However, at literally no point does any DnD 5E rulebook actually define what it means for an object to occupy its space, so you need to take everything I say in this post with that grain of salt.
tl;dr The Echo is more similar to a statue than it is to a humanoid.
The specific dimensions of the image are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the verbiage used and how the rules abstract this into play. The image occupies its space. When playing on a grid (an optional rule), this means it would typically be Medium or Small, dependent on the Size of the Echo Knight, and would fit in a typical 1-inch sqaure. It doesn't need a precise height or width, and it doesn't have any mass. Again, it's an image.
Which means you can't pick it up and move it, either.
The rule for Creature Size is a general rule, but D&D is a game system built on exceptions. Once you remember "objects sometimes use the same size categories" and that the echo "occupies its space", the idea that anyone would even argue about this is farcical.
It's not just that I take your opinions with a grain of salt. I don't think you're reading what you actually pretend to cite. You ought to be embarassed.
I'm reading that differently, JC seems to be saying the echo is NOT a nonmagical object
"The fireball spell in D&D forces creatures to make a saving throw. The Echo Knight's echo is intentionally not a creature, so it doesn't make the save.
The shatter spell affects creatures and nonmagical objects. The echo is intentionally neither of those things. #DnD"
I'm reading that differently, JC seems to be saying the echo is NOT a nonmagical object
"The fireball spell in D&D forces creatures to make a saving throw. The Echo Knight's echo is intentionally not a creature, so it doesn't make the save.
The shatter spell affects creatures and nonmagical objects. The echo is intentionally neither of those things. #DnD"
And yours would be the correct interpretation. See also, the text of the feature.
MANIFEST ECHO 3rd-level Echo Knight feature
You can use a bonus action to magically manifest an echo of yourself in an unoccupied space you can see within 15 feet of you. This echo is a magical, translucent, gray image of you that lasts until it is destroyed, until you dismiss it as a bonus action, until you manifest another echo, or until you're incapacitated.
It's explicitly magical, which makes it a magical object.
All good points.Jounichi And the rules find for Falling onto a Creature is great. As I update the FAQ, I have a few follow-up questions.
By the rules, an Echo occupies it's space. Assuming we are using a battle map, how are you defining space? Does an Echo occupy its space the same way a character might? Or are you treating Echos more like an object instead of a creature? A few tests that came up in the FAQ:
I don't have the answer to all these questions, but I've love to get your thoughts @Jounichi1983 or @quindraco.Or anyone else.
I would define "occupies its space" to mean controlling however many grid squares the echo knight does. If the echo knight is medium, then it controls one square. If the echo knight were subject to the enlarge/reduce spell and made Large size, then the echo would likewise control four squares in a 2 x 2 configuration. As for the bullet points, I'll do my best.
And, I would like to point out that, the rule for falling onto another creature, according to RAW, does not work with the echo. But it is something I would personally allow because the echo is capable of reacting independently of the echo knight. I say this because it can make saving throws, using the echo knight's modifier, even if the echo knight isn't.
Hiya Jounichi. You used an interesting term in your definition of "occupies its space". You said "...it controls one square." Here in lies I think what is part of the contradictions within the rules. If it is just treated like an inanimate object, like "a barrel, crate, or column", then other creatures could or should be able to around to move through the space, though with some difficulty. If it is an inanimate object, how does it "control" its space? We could assume it is an animated object that is moving around or otherwise preventing others from entering the space, but this leads to it's own rules challenges.
Obviously 5 foot squares and 'controlled' spaces are just abstractions and mechanics for use on a grid. As another example, using this abstraction, a creature can't move through a halfling's space because the halfling is trying to prevent it. So this really leads to two options that I can think of. Either the Echo is actively controlling it's space, or there is some magical force that is preventing others from entering the space.
This is why I think the question of how or if an Echo can move through (or displace) water is a good one. If it has physical form (and displaces water), this implies that it is substantial or tangible. Even if we say the Echo is semi-transparent, to displace water something has to be pushing the water away from the form the Echo occupies. And we can assume that whatever force is pushing water away can also push other things away. This also begs that question, can other creatures influence or push on that force? Can an Echo be 'shoved'? Can it be moved using other force magic? This all starts to go down a slippery slope of having to define yet more interactions.
Since the rules are unclear, there are a few different models we could use to explain how Echos work within the rules and metaphysics of D&D. For the purposes of this FAQ, it might be valuable to propose a couple different models since there currently is no definitive answer. There are really 2 or 3 models that I can think of based on what has been debated so far.
Model 1: Echos are tangible and can be interacted with
The illusory dragon spell might actually be a good example. It says the huge illusory dragon "...occupies its space, as if it were a creature." I like the part where they add 'as if it were a creature', which might suggestion/solve how we could treat a Echo. They go onto say that, "The illusion is tangible because of the shadow stuff used to create it, but attacks miss it automatically, it succeeds on all saving throws, and it is immune to all damage and conditions." While Echo might still be an object, we can apply rules related to the space it occupies "as if it were a creature." Thus presumably allies could move through it's space, it would displace water, other creatures could fall on top of it. It also implies you could tie a rope around, which could lead to some potential abuses.
Model 2: Echos are just illusions that magically force creatures away from it
This model suggests that the Echo is just an insubstantial illusion, somewhat like Spiritual Weapon. And the Echo can exert some magical force against things that try to enter its 'space'. This simplifies questions like, 'Can I tie a rope around the Echo?', 'Can an Echo be grappled?', and 'Does it displace water?' since it has no substance and is not tangible. The same force used to allow the Echo to momentarily hit another creature can be used to push back on other creatures or things trying to enter its 'space'. However, since it is not physical, this means it can't be pushed or moved. Which could potentially be abused to some degree as well. This also doesn't solve the mechanical problem of someone standing on top of the a flying Echo, since a creature can't enter the Echo's space. Though it could be stated that someone standing on top would likely fall off to one side or another since the magical force keeping others away is not uniform or doesn't create a stable or flat surface. This still assumes that when enough force or energy hit an Echo, it dissipates.
Model 3: Echos are semi-substantial
I'm not sure it this model is fully needed. But this model implies that you can still feel an Echo and there is some resistance, but you hand would still pass through it. This can be used to explain why you can still 'hit' it and why it has HP. But also why it you can't tie a rope around it. Presumably there would still have to be some magical force that would allow the Echo to keep others out of its space. One alternate option is that Echo is sometimes substantial and sometimes not. For example, when it is used to attack or keep others away, it is clearly substantial.
What do you think of the above models? What are their flaws? What other models would work? My hope is to give DMs and players some options to help answer and justify some of the many questions that will come up related to Echos. And it try to help justify or fill some of the rule gaps and contradictions that exist.
I personally have my own preferences for how I imagine Echos, or how I'd run them in my game. But the FAQ is meant to be more 'by the rules'. It is also worth noting that this is all a funny conversation over an imaginative game with a set of arbitrary rules. But still a fun mental exercise none the less.
The game engine doesn't care about the metaphysics of how something happens. The mechanics are an abstraction, but how it looks is just trappings. If you pose the question, "Does the echo displace water?", then I'll respond with, "Does displacing water mechanically impact the game?" If it doesn't, then whether it displaces water or not is purely cosmetic. If the echo knight is flavoring their "teleport" via Manifest Echo as swapping intersecting timelines with another version of themselves, then they might make subtle changes like eye color or scars. Even more dramatic changes, like sex and gender presentation, are possible since there are no mechanics for governing these characteristics.
What matters is what the rules say you can do. If you want to know whether the echo can be grappled, then you look up the rule for grappling. And we know the echo can't be grappled because it isn't a creature. It's an image; an object. A physical object, like an item of Adventuring Gear, can be picked up or manipulated. We don't need the rules telling us this because it makes sense. But the echo is just an image, so there's no such assumption. That's why the qualifier for [spell]illusory dragon[/item] exists. It's an exception that proves the rule.
Whether a creature can move through an object's space or not is something not expressly covered by the rules. A DM is free to call it difficult terrain and/or call for an ability check. But they are also free to say the space is impassible. And that freedom is beyond the scope of this FAQ. Characters cannot expressly move through an object's space, and so they cannot expressly move through the echo's space. The word "occupy" means to fill or take up space. The image, somehow, is substantial and serves as an obstacle. Presumably, it can even provide cover. It certainly seems to fit the bill.
"Control" seems like a fitting word to describe the echo's ability to affect the space it's in.
The echo fills a given space, has 1 Hit Point, an Armor Class, and can make Saving Throws. And yet, it can be dispelled in a manner not dissimilar from waving your hand through a cloud of smoke and leaves behind no physical evidence of a body. It is, seemingly, a paradox. If you're having trouble wrapping your head around it, then I suggest not thinking too hard on the subject. I find it a distraction, myself.
Sorry, but I don't think any of those models accurately describe it.
Thank Jounichi. You’re points are well taken. If you look at things purely from a rules perspective, everything you said is correct. I’m trying to come up with models for a couple reasons. One, to help or give some clues as to how to answer some of the questions that rules don’t cover. Two, to help give other DMs and players guidance and possible ways to imagine how Echos work beyond just the rules. If you have another model that you think works well, please let me know. I’d be happy to include it. I do think it being both an image and an object is paradoxical and difficult to imagine or comprehend. So my entire goal with this FAQ has been to help players understand what is and isn’t possible. Where there isn’t a rule, the FAQ should totally state it, and give some possible options on how to resolve it when it happens in a game. What player wouldn’t want to try to use an Echo to fly.
Since Tasha’s was written later, I actually think the fact that the wording of Illusory Dragon is more explicit is to solve some of the problems in previous books. So I don’t know that just because Echo Knight descriptions aren’t as explicit, that it means the opposite. Anyway, that is just my opinion.
A lot of good questions have been answered on this thread, and I don’t have answers to all of them. I’ll post them and I’d love to get your insights, model or not. How do you describe or run the paradox of the Echo in your game?
Allowing objects to control grid squares is a Pandora's Box of rules paradoxes that will not end well for you, unless you are prepared to argue that a sling bullet doesn't occupy its space, which will end even more poorly for you.
Anything of substance, be it creature or object, fills the space it's in; occupying and controlling that space. The only question is the size of that space. My office desk and chair occupy space. My cat occupies space. Abstracted into D&D's rules for movement (particularly on a grid), we only have to concern ourselves with whether it occupies the size of the square. Ideally, these are 1-inch squares meant to represent a 25-square-foot (arranged 5-foot by 5-foot ) area. But this is not always the case.
And, to be clear, none of us can properly fill a 5-foot square. But the game engine doesn't care about real-world physics. It deals in abstractions. Your character's several statistics are all abstractions.
There's no Pandora's box of paradoxes. And I'm disappointed you are approaching this Q&A so flippantly. If you have a competing theory, then, by all means, offer it up to the class. Otherwise, you're not contributing.
The game engine is only concerned with what is and is not a character. So, as far as the game engine is concerned, anything which isn't a creature is an object. We don't have a third category to draw from. We don't need one; since non-creatures don't have special subsets of rules that necessitate further categorization.
If you intend to answer questions the rules don't cover, then you're stepping past the Rules as Written. The FAQ, in turn, may conflate subjective interpretation with objective application. This has the potential to confuse anyone who reads it, and you won't help people by doing so.
Manifest Echo is rather explicit in what the echo can and cannot do. Do not take its perceived silence as, "Well, it doesn't say I can't do this." If an interaction is intended, a description will say so. People have been trying to apply the same logic to spell interactions for years. The spell grease does not create a flammable area. It does not deal extra fire damage should a spell that deals fire damage be used in its affected area. And we know this because the spell is silent on the subject. It only does what it says it does. Likewise, Manifest Echo only does what it says it does.
You're not going to find one prohibitive rule in any 5e book. There is not one line anywhere that says something to the effect of, "You cannot use X to do Y." And do not assume that just because illusory dragon has specific language that it is somehow meant to serve as errata to material written both before and after it that never received official errata. That is beyond foolhardy.
An echo is an object, and therefore has neither allies nor enemies.
I was assuming it would be an enemy of the Knight who created the Echo. But by your reading, should an ally (of the Knight) be able to pass through an Echo's space?
Echo Knight + Rogue... Can you make the bonus action attack with the rogue through the echo?
Can you swing with your main weapon and then attack with the same weapon as a bonus attack with the echo, or would the echo only be able to attack with the off-hand?
"You can heighten your echo’s fury. Whenever you take the Attack action, you can make one additional melee attack from the echo’s position."
No, the echo never actually makes the attack, and any time you would make an attack from the echo's position, it HAS to key off of the Attack action. Rogue BA attacks still only come from your space.
Formerly Devan Avalon.
Trying to get your physical content on Beyond is like going to Microsoft and saying "I have a physical Playstation disk, give me a digital Xbox version!"
I think what DevanAvalon is spot on. May I ask which rogue Bonus Action attack you are referring to? Or are you asking about two-weapon fighting in general?
I'm conflicted, because I want to say yes (and in which case, of course an enemy would be blocked). But other answers in the fact imply the Echo is an object.
If we want to get into things I want to be true, then all of Sentinel should apply to the echo, because "your reach" should include the reach of your attacks through the echo as well as around your own space. I only argue this because of the wording that it's not the Echo making the attack, but the Knight from the Echo's position.
But alas, I don't always get what I want.
As an object that occupies its space, you should (probably) be thinking of the Echo as a stone statue for most rules purposes (I am not saying it is actually made of stone, of course). One of the completely unanswered RAW questions about the Echo is its dimensions - it could be a 5x5x5 cube portraying an image, it could be an actual statue, it could be 2-dimensional and rotate to face targets (remember, it's described as an image, not a duplicate). Another is its weight. As always, ask your GM.
Depending your GM's rules regarding the above concerns, you may be able to go right through the Echo's grid space by walking around it. Certainly you can attempt to pick it up or kick it out of the way, as you would a door. Remember, objects can't occupy grid spaces - that's a creature-only rule, and objects have no such rule (I list the creature rule below). "Its space" is (probably) the literal physical space it occupies:
A creature's space is the area in feet that it effectively controls in combat, not an expression of its physical dimensions. - PHB p191; the lack of such a rule for objects implies that an object's space is its physical dimensions. However, at literally no point does any DnD 5E rulebook actually define what it means for an object to occupy its space, so you need to take everything I say in this post with that grain of salt.
tl;dr The Echo is more similar to a statue than it is to a humanoid.
The specific dimensions of the image are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the verbiage used and how the rules abstract this into play. The image occupies its space. When playing on a grid (an optional rule), this means it would typically be Medium or Small, dependent on the Size of the Echo Knight, and would fit in a typical 1-inch sqaure. It doesn't need a precise height or width, and it doesn't have any mass. Again, it's an image.
Which means you can't pick it up and move it, either.
The rule for Creature Size is a general rule, but D&D is a game system built on exceptions. Once you remember "objects sometimes use the same size categories" and that the echo "occupies its space", the idea that anyone would even argue about this is farcical.
It's not just that I take your opinions with a grain of salt. I don't think you're reading what you actually pretend to cite. You ought to be embarassed.
Update: An echo is considered an "object" not a "magical object" according to Jeremy Crawford on Twitter
https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/1249773997434101760?lang=en
I'm reading that differently, JC seems to be saying the echo is NOT a nonmagical object
"The fireball spell in D&D forces creatures to make a saving throw. The Echo Knight's echo is intentionally not a creature, so it doesn't make the save.
The shatter spell affects creatures and nonmagical objects. The echo is intentionally neither of those things. #DnD"
And yours would be the correct interpretation. See also, the text of the feature.
It's explicitly magical, which makes it a magical object.
Great find on the tweet! I do agree with Imalius and Jounichi on the reading of it. I've added Shatter to the FAQ under spells.
If anyone knows or thinks of other spells that would or would not work on an Echo that I should include, please list them.